Friday, July 31, 2015

MAPLE RIDGE BC CANADA - A PIT BULL CHARGED THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR TO ATTACK SARAH METZNER, 15, WHO WAS DELIVERING NEWSPAPERS - IT CHOMPED DOWN ON HER ARM AND WOULD NOT LET GO

A teenage newspaper carrier was still waiting for corrective surgery Wednesday, almost a week after A PIT BULL tore into her left hand.

Sarah Metzner, 15, was delivering papers along 117th Avenue, near Thomas Haney secondary last Friday, when she was attacked by the dog, which tore through a screen door to get at her.

Sarah was walking up the sidewalk to deliver the paper and heard the dog inside. She hesitated, but then heard the owner say from inside, that was it OK.

After placing the newspaper, Sarah walked back towards the street. That’s when the dog attacked.

“She had turned away and the dog came through the screen. It latched on to her left hand and it locked,” said her mom, Kelly Sullivan.

“She screamed and the neighbours came running.”

The person taking care of the dog tried to pull it off Sarah by grabbing its hind legs.

Neighbours then restrained the dog so it couldn’t do any more damage and someone brought a chair over for Sarah to sit on, positioning the dog behind her.

“At first, I was really, really scared,” Sarah said.

But help soon arrived. She wants to thank police and her neighbours for what they did.

The moments after the attack were frightening, Sarah added.

“It was worse afterwards because I could hear the dog behind me, but I couldn’t see him, so I thought he could get back at me and get me again, but I think I did OK.”

Her mom said Sarah’s recollection of the event is sketchy because of the trauma involved.

Sullivan was driving a TransLink bus at the time in Port Coquitlam and only heard on voice mail, with her daughter screaming.

She had to piece together the events based on what neighbours said.

Sullivan said when police arrived, one officer cut the dog’s throat, but that had no immediate effect. Police then tried to pry open the dog’s jaws with a baton. Eventually, it lost too much blood and died.

However, RCMP Cpl. Alanna Dunlop said police did not stab the dog, a two-year-old pit bull.

“The first member on scene was able to pry the dog’s mouth open using a baton.

“There was no knife used at all.”

The blood on the scene was from the victim’s injury, she added.

Dunlop said a muzzle was then put on the dog. At some point, afterwards, the dog died, but she didn’t know the cause, adding the SPCA would know that.

“What she went through was an extremely traumatic experience.”

Kelly, who didn’t see her daughter until she was in Ridge Meadows Hospital, says she lives in a close-knit neighbourhood.

“They all just came running and everybody was there for her, and I can’t thank them enough,” she said, her voice choking.

Throughout it all, her daughter was as strong as could be.

“From all accounts I heard from the police, neighbours and everybody else, she was amazing. She was very calm.”

Sullivan said that dog owners have to recognize the breeds they have, and act accordingly.

“Whether a dog bites or is aggressive depends on the owner’s willingness to train or teach the dog … so they don’t feel the need to resort to aggression.”

On Wednesday, Sarah was still waiting for surgery.

Doctors wanted to wait to see if infection set in.

The dog had to be exhumed to see if had been vaccinated for rabies.

Sullivan is not certain what will happen to her daughter’s hand, which has a crushed bone, puncture wounds and torn palm. “We don’t know. Until the surgeon takes a good look, we don’t know.”

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.